Beyond species means – the intraspecific contribution to global wood density variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood density is central for estimating vegetation carbon storage and a plant functional trait of great ecological and evolutionary importance. However, the global extent of wood density variation is unclear, especially at the intraspecific level. We assembled the most comprehensive wood density collection to date (GWDD v.2), including 109,626 records from 16,829 plant species across woody life forms and biomes. Using the GWDD v.2, we explored the sources of variation in wood density within individuals, within species, and across environmental gradients. Intraspecific variation accounted for up to 15% of overall wood density variation (sd = 0.068 g cm -3 ). Sapwood densities varied 50% less than heartwood densities, and branchwood densities varied 30% less than trunkwood densities. Individuals in extreme environments (dry, hot, acidic soils) had higher wood density than conspecifics elsewhere (+0.02 g cm -3 , ∼4% of the mean). Intraspecific environmental effects strongly tracked interspecific patterns (r = 0.83) but were only 20–30% as large and varied considerably among taxa. Individual plant wood density was difficult to predict (RMSE > 0.08 g cm -3 ; single-measurement R 2 = 0.59). We recommend (i) systematic within-species sampling for local applications, and (ii) expanded taxonomic coverage combined with integrative models for robust estimates across ecological scales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".